WORK IN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

(Ashutosh Pathak, 38)

The Industrial Revolution was a wide-ranging experience as well as an intensely human one.
On one hand, large-scale industrialization led to increasing capital accumulation by the
bourgeoisie class, while on the other hand it was responsible for the proletarianization of the
working class. The latter witnessed a deterioration in their standard of living. Aided by the
technological inventions of the previous century, the nineteenth century ushered in the era of
mechanized factory production. The pace of the machine determined the working hours of the
proletariat. There emerged a sophisticated economy of labour time. Industrial capitalism
incorporated a new logic that equated time with money. Hence, it sought to instil a
time-based discipline with the aid of whistles, fine schedules, and even nonwork-related
institutions and methods such as schools and moralistic sermons on sloth. This essay aims to
analyse the role of bourgeoisie ideology in this suddenness of the changes in work experience
by using the concept of "invented traditions" given by E.J. Hobsbawm.

The schematic framework of the essay is as follows. It will give a brief overview on how the
conception and performance of work (in the sense of manual labour performed by the
working class) changed in the nineteenth century. It will analyse the shift from irregular
labour rhythms to regimental ‘factory discipline’ through Marxist economic theory of labour
value. Successively, the essay will briefly consider why capitalist mode of production was
intensely competitive and acquisitive. Taking the volatile nature of capitalist mode of
production as the background, it will seek to prove how this work culture marked by
alienation and regimentation was “invented” rather than fortuitous. In other words, its
ideological and discursive basis will be investigated. The essay will attempt to explore this
issue keeping in mind not only the aspect of class antagonism, but also the gender dynamics
and child labour.

The Industrial Revolution brought about phenomenal changes in the conception of work, its
objectives, nature and orientation. Industrialising countries increasingly adopted the factory
mode of production. This was different from pre-industrial and proto-industrial modes of
production. Capital witnessed a sustained commercial expansion. Its absorptive nature led to
its expansion from circuits of exchange to circuits of production. The manufacturer organised
the means of production and took major logistical decisions. The concentration of capital in
few relatively well-endowed cities led to flocking of the aspirational working class to these
industrial hubs.

Workers encountered new rules and regulations which were out of synchronisation with their
previous irregular labour rhythms. They had to arrive at the factory when the factory whistle
blew. Workers couldn't wander around the factory, chatter or sing. Rules, fines and layers of
supervisors were devices aimed at imposing an unfamiliar sense of time and coordination.
New occupational time-tables were introduced in the industrial society. A new feature was
the night shifts that workers in mining, pits and railway were obliged to work in. Police
forces, newly created in European and American cities, spent up to half their time trying to
regulate popular leisure habits in the interests of maintaining what was now defined as public
respectability and creating a more punctual, docile working population. E.P. Thompson has
characterised this shift as one of task-orientation to timed-labour.

Work rules, formalized, impersonal and occasionally printed were symbolic of the new
industrial relationships. The Law Book of the Crowley Iron Works in Durham is a good
example of the kind of rule books that were being circulated in the factory spaces to
discipline workers. The law book was a collection of 94 laws ​created by Sir Ambrose
Crowley and his son John in the early eighteenth century for the governing of their
ironworks. Crowleys found it necessary to design an entire civil and penal code, running to
more than 100,000 words, to govern and regulate his refractory labour force. Another
example of the regimental attitude is the list of fines at Wedgwood's Etruria works. Josiah
Wedgewood is the exemplar of the cruel taskmaster that the master-manufacturers of the
Industrial Revolution were.

Most factories hired a separate managerial group of foremen to hire and fire workers and to
keep the work going properly. Substantial numbers of these foremen were drawn from the
ranks of workers, but were expected to represent the management interests. There were
several measures to preclude the formation of any kind of solidarity or consciousness
amongst the workers.

Neither were developments in women’s work optimistic. Initially, women were part of the
industrial workforce because of their perceived feminine physiology. Employers argued that
women’s willingness to work for lower wages, their nimble fingers amid the machines, and
their docility were essential for industrial success. With the shift to capital-intensive and
heavy industries, women came to be increasingly consigned to less demanding and strenuous
professions like domestic service, garment making and textile industries. Urban women
worked as laundresses, seamstresses, or street merchants and peddlers, and some kept
boarding houses. In Britain, domestic service remained the largest category of female
employment at the middle of the century, employing 1.3 million workers which constituted
nearly 40% of the female workforce. Their participation as “breadwinners” in the household
only lessened overtime leading to a new differential of economic power between males and
females. Herein lies the roots of the “separate sphere” for men and women i.e.
man/provider-woman/homemaker distinction.

The cult of domesticity associated with women was still a middle-class idea creating
conditions of “enforced leisure” for them. For women of the working class, work conditions
were even more bleak. Actually working-class families were faced with a dilemma. With the
growth of work and the consequent separation of work and home, women had to balance the
need for the additional income which the factory work could provide, along with caring for
the children. The status of the women was thus determined by the double burden of being
economically productive and simultaneously conforming to gender roles and expectations.
Women’s conduct and contribution was increasingly becoming a determinant of typical
bourgeois “respectability”. The working class tended to emulate this ideal in order to be
upwardly mobile in a social order which was in a constant flux.

With the increase in middle-class male-demand for prostitution, hundreds and thousands of
European women worked full or part-time as prostitutes. Some women, including many who
were married, were able to earn much more money selling sexual favours than they could
earn in textile mills or in domestic service. The bourgeoisie attitude to prostitution has been
termed as “the sexual double standard” and the flipside of an otherwise bourgeoisie
respectability. There were attempts by the state to legally regulate prostitution through the
Contagious Diseases Act during the 1860s. As per the provisions of this statute, prostitutes
were subjected to mandatory registrations, bodily inspections, medical treatment and eventual
incarceration in case of refusal. Similar regulatory laws were enacted in Sardinia and
individual German states in the 1850s and took effect on a national level in Italy with
unification in 1860 and in Germany in 1871.
The challenge to traditional roles in the family economy extended to children as they began
to be mercilessly exploited in industrial processes. While child labour was not an invention of
Industrial Revolution, it was far from traditional. The new mass employment removed the
incentive of learning a craft, alienated the children by its monotony and simultaneously
undermined the authority of the family, and father in particular. Child labour had thus to rely
often on the unhappy method of indirect employment by untrained people whose incentive
for driving the children was their own piece-rate payment.

Their smaller size made children useful for certain tasks, such as mending broken threads or
climbing on machinery to extract something impeding its operation. Factory work was
dangerous for young workers. Children often worked with the machinery in operation and
hence suffered various casualties. An English factory inspector reported that the children
working at a punching machine risked losing fingers. The justification offered by one of the
proprietors presents a case in point, “They seldom lose the hand, it only takes off a finger at
the first or second joint. Sheer carelessness … sheer carelessness!”

The textile mills, in particular silk mills, were exclusively dependent on children. In fact,
there developed a category of child labourers called ‘bobbin boys’ who tied broken threads
when machines ran on. In the silk mills, children started particularly young, around the ages
of six or seven as compared to nine or ten in cotton mills. In some industries, so stark was the
contrast in age of workers, that adults were reduced to a small minority. Moreover, in the
entire process, the children were increasingly separated from their parents and relatives and
placed under the direction of strangers.

The work culture of the times can broadly be summed up as one pervaded by separation and
alienation. The shift in the site of the work from home to factory was one of the major
disruptions. Households ceased to be a unit of production. Male workers in factories could
not form the same kind of sociability which was the hallmark of pre-industrial manual work.
This was partly due to the intensity of work and partly due to the hierarchy amongst the
workers introduced by master-manufacturer as a part of the supervisory regimen.

The antagonism between males and females grew. The masculinity of the male workers was
challenged by the loss of the skills and authority in the factory. The spillover effect was that
they began to exercise abusive sexual prowess over their wives. A British worker stated a
common theme: “I found my wife was out when I returned home after closing hours [of the
local tavern], so when she did come in, I knocked her down; surely a man can do a thing like
that to his wife.” Moreover, a new gender bias for protest activity arose. Early trade unions
regarded women as unreliable members as they were willing to accept low wages. As a
result, female workers turned against the budding unionism.

This on-ground reality of work-culture and its portrayal in this manner, has striking
resemblance to the theory of alienation put forth by Karl Marx in his ​Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts (1844). The fundamental separation is the separation of the
producer from the means of production. This is also the definition of proletariat. With the
decline of manorial agriculture and guild production, the instruments of production i.e.
machines belonged now to the master-manufacturer. Further, there are four types of
alienation which flows from it - alienation from the product of labour, alienation from the
activity of labour, alienation from one’s own specific humanity and alienation from others or
the society. In other words, a new pace and discipline, a lifetime of supervision by a separate
management group and a limited sense of achievement came to be the hallmarks of work in
industrial capitalism.

Marx has also provided the economic reasoning behind the intensification of work and
capitalistic competition through the labour theory of value. According to labour theory of
value, the exchange value (different from subsistence or use value) of a commodity, is
determined by the quantity of labour necessary to produce it. Labour implies not the quantity
of labour expended by an individual producer. Instead, it refers to socially necessary labour
which means the quantity of labour necessary under the average conditions of labour
productivity existing in a given country at a given time. Production as well as productivity are
taken care of.

Socially necessary labour is directly proportional to the surplus profit. The method by which
a capitalist increases surplus profit relative to other capitalists is by producing in excess of
that stipulated by average or socially necessary labour. The capitalist who succeeds is
rewarded by society in the form of profits. The capitalist who fails has to forgo the profits and
gives way to more productive firms. There are two consequences. Production involves fixed
capital (machines and raw material) and variable capital (labour). Firstly, there is an increase
in mechanization to produce more goods in less time. Secondly, there is an increase in labour
hours and decrease in wages of workers. The capitalist cannot dispense with labour. Labour
provides the consumer basis. Complete automation of society is theoretically and practically
not possible. Hence, the intensification of competition results in the increasing exploitation of
the labour.

Moreover, since capitalist production is all the more prone to dramatic disruptions due to
wars, labour strikes, crisis of overproduction, capitalist treads a careful path of social
engineering to instill the time-based discipline among the workers. It is an attempt to
regularise not just the workers, but the whole society into orienting work and life to the
whims of market-forces. The market forces become the determinant of new and “invented”
traditions.

E.J. Hobsbawm has introduced the concept of “invented traditions” in a broad but not an
imprecise sense. Hobsbawm defines the concept as follows :

“Invented tradition is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly
accepted rules and of a ritual or a symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms
of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.”

This concept of “invented tradition” seeks to bridge the gulf between two diametrically
opposed tendencies of modernity - constant change and innovation on one hand and the
attempt to structure at least some parts of social life within it as unchanging and invariant.

This is the point of departure from the conventional understanding of a tradition as “custom”
which is rooted in antiquity and is largely invulnerable to minor convulsions in the
socio-economic realm. Moreover, only those rules and rituals are to be regarded as
“invented” which are meant to serve ideological, and not technical ends. This should be taken
to mean the irrational fears of the employers and manufacturers which underpinned the strict
ethos of work and discipline. In an age of volatility and uncertainty, the bourgeoisie class
wanted to avoid any risks.

Let’s take up the case of factory discipline. Ernst Mandel has emphasised on the
unprecedented intensity of work in industrial times. In his own words’,
“ … normally, because of his physical and nervous constitution, no man cares to be confined for 8, 9,
10 or 12 hours a day in a factory, mill or mine ; it really requires a most abnormal and unusual force
or pressure to make a man engage in this kind of convict labour when he has not been accustomed to
it.”

The fact that the requirements of labour were akin to a kind of “convict labour” has been
sufficiently emphasised uptil now. Be it the male workers, women or the children belonging
to the working class, they had their own share of drudgery and work-load. E.P. Thompson
has succinctly summarised this new work regime, “In all these ways - by division of labour ;
the supervision of labour, fines ; bells and clocks ; money incentives ; preachings and
schoolings ; the suppression of fairs and sports - new labour habits were formed, and a new
time discipline was imposed.”

Sidney Pollard, a British economic and labour historian, in his path-breaking study of the
factory discipline in the industrial revolution has proposed a three-fold categorization of the
ways and means used by employers to discipline workers. These three methods to overcome
the problem of factory discipline were - the proverbial stick, the proverbial carrot, and
thirdly, the attempt to create a new ethos of work order and obedience. He goes on to say that
“The concept of industrial discipline was new, and called for as much innovation as the
technical inventions of the age”.

Of the three categories introduced by Pollard, it is the third one that is in tune with the
requirements of this section. The negative deterrents and positive incentives have previously
been considered. The third section, which is to do with “create a new ethos”, is more in line
with that aspect of the definition of “invented traditions” which concerns itself with overtly or
tacitly accepted rules of a ritual or symbolic nature. The novelty of this new work regime has
been dealt with early in this essay. What is now being investigated is the ways through which
the bourgeoisie class attempted to justify and normalise this novelty.

While the employers believed or professed to believe that hard-work was the stuff of life, the
workers maintained a distinct conception of work which they did not give up entirely. In the
latter case, there was no strict separation between ‘work’ and ‘leisure’ or ‘work’ and ‘life’,
amongst other differences. The bourgeoisie class tended to look upon the work culture in
rural and craft occupations as wasteful and lacking in urgency. The middle class self-made
individuals accepted the ethic of hard, intense work and saw it pay off in personal
achievement. The Industrial Revolution was seen as a source of personal and social progress.
To those, who lived a precarious existence and worked under them, the ascendant bourgeoisie
had a convenient retort - if poverty existed, it resulted from poor work habits.

The studies by Max Weber and Richard Tawney are based on the theme of Puritanism in the
16th and 17th century along with its role in the genesis of commercial capitalism. Weber’s
thesis of ‘Protestant Ethic’ brings to fore the Puritan notion of “calling” or “election” with its
characteristic emphasis on values of freedom, self-discipline, individualism and
acquisitiveness. Both these scholars have broken new grounds in factoring in Puritanism as a
motive force in the development of psychic energy and the social coherence of the
middle-class groups. Tawney has introduced the concept of “New Medicine for Poverty”
with its denunciation of sloth and improvidence in labour and the convenient belief that
success was a sign of “Election” while poverty was itself evidence of spiritual turpitude.
Weber has given the essential background in how this bourgeoisie notion was to impact the
working class :

“Wherever modern capitalism has begun its work of increasing the productivity of human labour by
increasing its intensity, it has encountered the immensely stubborn resistance of pre-capitalistic
labour.”

What E.P. Thompson has added to this monumental hypothesis, is the role of non-conformist
sects like Methodism and Wesleyanism. Methodist doctrine gave the social and spiritual
sanction to the blessedness of “husbandry of time”, hard labour, poverty, and sorrow through
“all the days of thy life” - in other words, everything that was a source of distress and
turbulence in their lives. It provided the “inner compulsions” that the manufacturer could
scarcely provide, his allurements of piece-wages and other incentives notwithstanding. The
objective, whether advertently pursued or not was this : The labourer must be “turned into his
own slave driver”. Publications like ​Christian Directory ​by Richard Baxter of 1673 contain a
fully-formed articulation of the elements of the Methodist work-discipline.

The master-manufacturers took no time in appropriating this tool of indoctrination to

‘methodise’ workers. Even above the chimney breast “Thou God seest me” was hung. Dr.
Ure in his ​Philosophy of Manufactures ​(1835) lays down a complete case of intertwining
industrial production and religious moralism with the latter as a certain guarantee of
impeccable work-discipline. In his own words,

“It is, therefore, excessively the interest of every mill-owner ​to organize his moral machinery on
equally sound principles with his mechanical, for otherwise he will never command the steady hands,
the watchful eyes, and prompt cooperation, essential to the excellence of the product …”

To some extent, employers did manage to progressively reshape work culture. Second
generation workers, born and bred in the factory shadow and often beginning work as
children, were less intractable than their parents. Specific habits, such as returning to the
countryside during harvest, declined rather quickly. The onslaught from so many directions,
upon people’s old working habits was not of course uncontested. In the first stage, there was
simple resistance. But in the next stage, as the new time-discipline is imposed, the workers
begin to fight not against time but about it. They had accepted the categories of their
employers and learned to fight back within them. They had learned their lesson, that time is
money.

Child labour presents a similar case. The children of middle-class backgrounds received some
respite from the parliamentary and legal reforms by a state which believed in bowing down to
the demands of the middle-class. There was an increasing realization that children needed
time for schooling to prepare them more adequately for industrial work. In the 1870s, the
belief that the task of childhood was education and not contribution to family income was
taken up as a legal mandate. New concepts such as ‘adolescence’ and ‘childhood’ were
“invented” by the medical discourses and legislative apparatus to acknowledge the in-limbo
stages of development between literal childhood and a life of work. The child of the
proletariat was less fortunate.

While the increasing influence of British philanthropy did ensure some reforms in the number
of hours a child was supposed to work and the necessity of schooling, it was only piecemeal.
The actual provision of education for the poor was little more than naming the flowers and
herbs. The major part of education began and ended with the “moral rescue” of the children
of the poor. According to E.P. Thompson, the school was the non-industrial institution to
inculcate “time-thrift”, marked by exhortations to regularity and punctuality. Institutions like
the Raikes’ School and Stockport Sunday schools received much adulation and usage of
epithets like a ‘spectacle of order and regularity’, ‘sublime spectacle’ and ‘quiet fortresses’
for these schools was common.

The school was a regimental space for children. Their underlying philosophy was the zealous
conviction about the aboriginal sinfulness of the child. The child was subject at Sunday
school and at home (especially with pious parents) to the worst kind of emotional bullying to
confess his sins and come to a sense of salvation. At Wesley’s Kingswood School, only
severely workful “recreations” were allowed - chopping wood, digging and the like. Games
and play were regarded as “unworthy of a Christian child”. A little school-going girl once
told one of the Commissioners on Child Labour in the Mines, “if I died a good girl I should
go to heaven - if I were bad I should have to be burned in brimstone and fire : they told me
that at the school yesterday, I did not know it before.” It was only with the Lancastrian
charity school movement of the early nineteenth century that genuine educational intentions
and the utilitarian concern for equipping children for industrial occupation were introduced.

The Industrial Revolution had significant ramifications of the status of women. They were
moved off the public premises to direct the domestic haven. This was not “enforced leisure”
as a sharp sexual division of labour emerged - men worked and earned while women took
care of the domestic duties. The reasons for this displacement were not simply rooted in
practical or economic concerns ; they had a deep ideological core to it. Concurrent to this
process of decline of women in industrial labour force was the increasing polemical emphasis
on women as frail sex. Assumptions of women’s weakness and irrationality was both a cause
and consequence of their loss from the economic sphere of production. Men vaunted the new
economic division between the genders. This was one principle on which businessmen,
middle-class humanitarians, and many male workers readily agreed: respectable adult women
should not work.

Peter Stearns says, “The typical unevenness in the former work pace was explicitly attacked:
work was meant to be steady as well as fast, with no whimsical interruptions, for if one
worker stopped, a whole machine might shut down.” This bourgeoisie exactitude assumed
moralistic strain when women began to express their identity as a distinct sex. The fear of
female sexuality was entrenched in European societies. The first visible signs of such ferment
can be located in the French Revolution. The Revolution witnessed a renewed resurrection of
the gender discrimination and “gender trouble”. Dorinda Outram and J.B. Landes have
argued that Jacobins were not operating in a traditionally misogynistic framework when
repressing societies like Society of Revolutionary Republican Women. Instead the
revolutionary discourse of ‘virtue’ and liberty were interpreted differently for men and
women. So much so that they assumed oppositional categories - active-passive, bold-modest,
reason-intuition, public-private, Seen in this manner, the deterioration of the status of women
was not a continuation of the “victim syndrome” of the past. Instead, it was a distinct and
“invented” tradition of the modern era.

A good example of apprehensive and reactionary attitude of the vanguards of industrial

capitalism (who were strict moralists as well) is the case of single mill workers. Beginning
1870s and 1880s, the Lower Rhine belt of silk and cotton mills was flooded by young Irish
women. Living in company dormitories or boarding houses without supervision, the arrival of
mill girls in towns across the textile-manufacturing zone of the Rhineland prompted fears
among local elites about foreignness, licentiousness, leisure and luxury. Along with that came
the shocking realization that young women were now living away from home, cut off from
their communities and clerical influence, earning and spending an independent wage. Erosion
of domesticity and morality, pregnancies out of the wedlock, unkempt and unhygienic
households, spread of sexually transmitted diseases (like syphilis) and contagion were seen as
likely outcomes. In other words, it was perceived that repercussions on family and social
economics could be immense.

The tendency to judge women squarely in terms of their corrupting influence in public life is
a phenomena unique to early modern Europe. The practice of witch-hunting during the Thirty
Years War can be taken as an early development in that tradition. Simultaneously, the
“woman’s question” was also posed in a discursive manner by the West. The debate over
“woman question” or ​querelles des femmes actually raged during the period between the late
Renaissance and the early Enlightenment. The phrase refers to an array of theories and
debates about the physiological nature, political capacity, moral character, and social location
of women in European societies. This “women question” was almost always a social “gender
question”. The deputies of the Third Estate in France like Andre Amar and Pierre-Gaspard
Chaumette were, if only inadvertently, participating in this debate. "Each sex is called to the
kind of occupation which is fitting for it” - such a statement could not have been a product of
preindustrial household mode of production.
The “long-nineteenth century” was also a period when new medical discourses were coming
up. There was a shift from humoural conceptions of disease to the germ theory of disease.
This period was also marked by the emergence of a “sexual science” which emphasized what
women held in common – their physiology and corresponding capacities and proclivities of
mind. The notion of the polarity of the sexes was validated by scientific theories such as
Darwin’s emphasis on the importance of sexual selection, as well as scientific practices such
as skull measuring. Enlightenment studies generated interests in comparative anatomy. One
of the pioneering studies done in this regard was by Pierre Roussel’s work titled ​Systeme
physique et morale de la femme (1775). Roussel demonstrated that women's tissues were
‘spongy and soft’ compared to men’s and revealed the ‘passive state for which nature
destines them’. A striking feature of Roussel’s text is the ease with which it links women’s
physical characteristics with behavioural virtues and aesthetic values. His treatise became so
popular that it was reedited seven times between 1775 and 1869.

Such a notoriously “misogynist brand of medico-philosophical doctrine” became popular at

the turn of the eighteenth and into the nineteenth century. Thomas Laqueur states that
increasing conviction of biological incommensurability was “invented” sometime in the
eighteenth century. It was a new way of perceiving the relation between men and women in
relation to each other. The two sexes were no longer situated on the vertical continuum of
hierarchy and subordination but along the sides of a horizontal axis without any middle
ground between them. Separation and alienation was the rolling tide of the times which
eventually soured gender relations as well.

The Industrial Revolution was a time of great change. The transformation in work culture
was quite marked and all ascendant social classes and existing sex categories experienced it.
However, the experience was not the same for each class and sex. The labour of the working
classes was exploited to the hilt to make this experience a comfortable and leisurely one for
the now powerful middle classes. In turn, the latter introduced widespread structural changes
and discursive shifts to normalise the transformation for their working class counterparts. The
rapidity in the technological advances meant the emergence of an economy of labor time. The
ideological propensities and scientific studies were oriented in such a manner so as to ensure
a broad reconciliation of the means of production and relations of production. The ultimate
aim of the bourgeoisie was to preclude any dramatic upheavals in the production cycles and
ensure reckless and seamless profit making. While the attempt did not go uncontested, it
nevertheless led to the “invention of tradition” of a work culture, the remnants of which have
survived unscathed in contemporary times.

References

Canning, K. (2006). The "Woman Question". In S. Berger, ​A Companion to

Nineteenth Century Europe​ (pp. 193-208). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Hobsbawm, E. (1983). Introduction : Inventing Traditions. In E. Hobsbawm, ​The

Invention of Tradition​ (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mandel, E. (1979). Capital and Capitalism. In E. Mandel, ​An Introduction to Marxist

Economic Theory​ (pp. 29-53). New York: Pathfinder Press Inc.

Mandel, E. (1979). The Theory of Surplus Value. In E. Mandel, ​An Introduction to

Marxist Economic Theory​ (pp. 7-28). New York: Pathfinder Press Inc.

Merriman, J. (2004). The Industrial Revolution. In J. Merriman, ​History of Modern

Europe : From Renaissance to the Present (pp. 532-543, 553-562). New York:
W.W. Norton.

Pollard, S. (1963). Factory Discipline in the Industrial Revolution. ​The Economic

History Review​, 254-271.

Stearns, P. (2013). The Social Impact of the Industrial Revolution. In P. Stearns, ​The
Industrial Revolution in World History​ (pp. 69-88). Boulder: Westview Press.

Thompson, E. (1966). The Transforming Power of the Cross. In E. Thompson, ​The

Making of the English Working Class (pp. 350-400). New York: Vintage
Books.

Thompson, E. (Dec. 1967). Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism. ​Past

and Present​, 56-97.

Vila, A. C. (Autumn, 1995). Sex and Sensibility: Pierre Roussel's ​Système physique et
moral de la femme​. Représentations. 76-93.